Rell, Others Laud N.Y.'s Rejection Of Broadwater Gas Plant

Broadwater Energy's "Floating Storage and Regasification Unit," a 1,200-foot-long docking and processing facility for liquefied natural gas tankers, would be located 10 miles south of New Haven. The project also envisions a 22-mile pipeline under Long Island Sound.

Broadwater Energy's "Floating Storage and Regasification Unit," a 1,200-foot-long docking and processing facility for liquefied natural gas tankers, would be located 10 miles south of New Haven. The project also envisions a 22-mile pipeline under Long Island Sound.

Opponents cheered as New York Gov. David Paterson declared Thursday, "The fact is, Broadwater is behind us."

But the high-stakes battle over Broadwater Energy's plan to put a massive, floating, natural-gas plant in Long Island Sound isn't over yet. The developers said New York's rejection of their plan Thursday was just one step in the approval process, not the last one, and opponents expect an appeal.

Still, at press conferences on both sides of the Sound, officials, citizens and environmental groups opposed to the plant celebrated their first major victory — New York's decision that the project was inconsistent with its coastal management plan.

Although Connecticut had no official standing in the decision, many in the state had been eagerly awaiting New York's decision.

"We did it! We did it! We did it!" Gov. M. Jodi Rell exclaimed at a press conference on Silver Sands Beach in Milford. "This is exactly the news we hoped to hear today: that New York's Department of State has recognized the peril that the Broadwater project represents."

New York's action leaves the next legal step up to Broadwater, and opponents concede there could be a long battle ahead.

"This does not necessarily change the game plan," said John Hritcko, senior vice president and regional project director for Broadwater Energy, a consortium of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipeline. "Today's decision is part of a regulatory review process, not the end of one. We — and thousands of others in this region — believe that this project is the best alternative to provide the additional natural gas supply that will be required."

Hritckosaid the company has "a number of options going forward" and would review the decision in detail before deciding on its next move.

Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez, New York's secretary of state, called the rejection of Broadwater's application a "complex and difficult decision," saying the project did not mesh with several aspects of the state's coastal policies.

Her decision, backed up by Paterson, puts a serious roadblock in Broadwater's path.

"We are disappointed and concerned with the [New York] decision," Hritcko said. "We specifically designed this project to be consistent with the state's coastal management policies and offered a number of additional commitments that would further enhance the state's coastal resources."

"This fight is far from over," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a longtime opponent of the project. Under federal energy law, he said, the company has 30 days to appeal the decision to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who can overrule state decisions.

"They have a right to go to the secretary … and say that national energy priorities should override the coastal zone management determination made here by the governor," Blumenthal said.

The company also could appeal through state agencies and courts, but Blumenthal called that approach "exceedingly unlikely" because of the time involved.

Even if Cortes-Vazquez's rejection of the project were to be overturned, two other New York agencies would still have to approve Broadwater.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which has raised objections to the project, would have to issue a permit, and the New York State Office of General Services would have to grant the company an easement to use public land.

Broadwater, a 1,200 foot long liquefied natural gas processing plant, would be permanently moored to a tower in the middle of the Sound, about 10.5 miles off Branford.

Opponents have argued that the two states and the federal government have invested tens of millions of dollars over the past 20 years to improve the environment of the Sound.

They say that allowing an industrial use like Broadwater in the middle of public waters would threaten that progress.

"Gov. Paterson's swift and immediate decision to reject this ill-advised proposal should be applauded and celebrated with a ticker tape parade," said U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District. "For years, Connecticut and New York residents have faced the threat of a quarter-mile-long barge in the middle of the revitalized Long Island Sound that would serve only the interests of multinational oil conglomerates."

Cortes-Vazquez and Paterson both cited the need to find alternative ways to meet the demand for energy.

"The thorough analysis in today's ruling makes clear the importance of protecting the character of Long Island Sound as it points the way to sensible alternatives for meeting New York's long-term energy needs," said Cortes-Vazquez, whose department is charged under federal law with making sure projects meet the state's goals for both developing and protecting the coast.

Paterson stressed the Sound's environmental value.

"One of my goals … is to protect Long Island Sound, by preserving it as a valuable estuary, an economic engine for the region, and a key component to making Long Island's quality of life one of the best in the country," Paterson said. "Broadwater does not pass that test. Shame on us if we can't develop a responsible energy policy without sacrificing one of our greatest natural and economic resources."

Paterson outlined a series of steps for addressing energy needs, including an update of the state's energy plan; a 10-year, $1 billion efficiency initiative by the Long Island Power Authority to reduce demand; doubling the New York Power Authority's budget for conservation; and exploring other proposals to increase the supply of natural gas.

He also said the Long Island Power Authority would be seeking proposals for a major solar power project.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission voted unanimously last month to approve Broadwater. In a 2,200-page environmental impact statement, the agency concluded that the project would not have major adverse impacts, but also imposed 80 conditions intended to minimize the effect on the Sound.

The decision by Cortes-Vazquez declares that Broadwater violates six of 13 policies that are part of the state's coastal management plan, including those to:

ΔFoster a pattern of development in the Long Island Sound coastal area that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location and minimizes adverse effects of development.